Half an inch of sidewalk is not a dangerous condition, Mississippi court holds
Half an inch of sidewalk is not a dangerous condition, Mississippi court holds
2026-09-15 · Mississippi · Courts
A property owners association was not liable when a member tripped on a half-inch lip between two sidewalk slabs leaving the community pool. Rodriguez v. Diamondhead Country Club and Property Owners Association, Inc., No. 2024-CA-00238-COA, decided March 25, 2025, became final when certiorari was denied on September 25, 2025.1
The fall
Jane Rodriguez, a Diamondhead POA member, was leaving the community pool when she caught a vertical offset of roughly half an inch between two concrete sidewalk slabs. She broke her shoulder and lost a tooth.
She sued the association on two theories. The first was ordinary premises liability — failure to maintain a reasonably safe sidewalk. The second was negligence per se, resting on § 1110.4.14 of the 2018 International Building Code, which requires pools to sit on an “accessible route,” and on the Mississippi Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities Code.
The circuit court granted the association summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed unanimously, Carlton, P.J., writing.
Why the premises claim failed
The court found “no error in the circuit court's ruling that the approximately half-an-inch height differential between the two concrete sidewalk slabs at issue did not constitute a dangerous condition.”1 That finding is dispositive because a dangerous condition is an essential element: without one there is nothing for a duty to attach to, and the remaining elements are never reached.
This is the ordinary Mississippi rule about small, common surface irregularities, applied to a community amenity. It is not a holding that associations owe no duty at a pool deck — it is a holding about how much unevenness counts.
Why the building-code theory failed
The negligence-per-se claim failed as a matter of law on the protected-class element. The accessibility provisions Rodriguez invoked “are intended to benefit or protect individuals with disabilities,” she “has never claimed she is disabled,” and she “makes no claim that she was discriminated against or denied pool access due to the alleged defect.”
Negligence per se in Mississippi requires the plaintiff to be within the class the statute or code was enacted to protect and the harm to be of the type it was meant to prevent. An accessibility standard is not a general maintenance standard, and borrowing it to set a tripping-hazard tolerance does not work.
What it means for common-area maintenance
Amenity liability is decided on the specific defect, not on the association's general upkeep. The court measured the offset. A board defending a common-area claim should expect the same: what was the condition, exactly, and how much of it was there.
Accessibility compliance and tort exposure are separate tracks. An association can have a genuine accessibility problem at a pool or clubhouse without that fact establishing negligence toward a non-disabled member who falls — and it can satisfy accessibility standards and still face an ordinary premises claim over a genuinely dangerous condition.
Document amenity inspections anyway. The favourable outcome here turned on the size of the offset, which is a fact the association was able to establish. Associations that cannot say what their walkways looked like before a fall are arguing from a worse position regardless of the legal standard.
Status
Published and precedential. Rehearing denied August 5, 2025; certiorari denied September 25, 2025 in No. 2024-CT-00238-SCT. Final.
Related Mississippi HOA Topics
Stay on top of Mississippi HOA law
Every week: new Mississippi legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.